The following report outlines the findings from a survey of ToolBank member organizations regarding their attitudes, economic and community outcomes as a result of utilizing the ToolBank tool lending service. The survey was developed by the ToolBank with support from the Johns Hopkins Baltimore Community Data Science class based upon the results of a pilot survey to high-frequency ToolBank member organizations. The survey contained 25 response fields and was available for members to complete from November 9th 2023 to November 17th 2023. ToolBank members were incentivized to participate by receiving a $25 tool credit for each completed survey, with the the first ten survey responses receiving an additional $25 tool credit. Multiple responses per organization were encouraged to allow for a diversity of experiences to be captured and each additional response per organization was provided a credit of an additional $10. The following sections outline the key findings from the survey; general sentiment stratified by years with the member organization, size of the member organization, and minority status of the member organization; the economic and community impact of the ToolBank, as indicated by respondents; and the impact of the ToolBank on Community Based Organizations’ self-reported fundraising capacity. The full project repository is available here: https://github.com/jhudsl/BCDS_ToolBank_2023.git.
Respondents were asked five questions to assess their attitudes towards the ToolBank’s impact on their organization and their community. Respondents were asked to rank their agreement with statements on a scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, including options for neutral and not applicable. The statements included the following:
Figure 1: Respondent Attitudes Toward ToolBank Impact
Table 1: Respondent Attitudes Toward ToolBank Impact
| Number, percentages of respondents to sentiment questions | ||||||
| #Strongly Agree (%) | #Agree (%) | #Neutral (%) | #Disagree (%) | #Strongly Disagree (%) | #N/A (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TB has pos. impacted our CBO by reducing costs related to purchasing or renting tools and equipment | 42 (93.3%) | 3 (6.7%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| TB has pos. impacted our CBO by reducing costs related to storing tools and equipment | 26 (57.8%) | 7 (15.6%) | 7 (15.6%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (11.1%) |
| TB has pos. impacted our CBO by reducing staff time to complete maintenance/projects | 19 (42.2%) | 11 (24.4%) | 8 (17.8%) | 2 (4.4%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (11.1%) |
| the Tools made available through the TB allow our CBO to complete higher quality events/projects without additional funding | 36 (80%) | 7 (15.6%) | 2 (4.4%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| TB has pos. impacted our CBO | 42 (93.3%) | 3 (6.7%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
Findings
The following plots analyze the questions from section one above, stratified by the number of years that the respondent reported working at the CBO, the size of the CBO, and the minority status of the CBO. These plots explore if there is a relationship between these self-reported characteristics and the respondents’ attitudes towards the ToolBank’s economic and community impact.
The following plots analyze the questions from section two, stratified by the number of years that the respondent reported working at the CBO. These plots explore if there is a relationship between respondents’ self-reported number of years with the CBO and their attitudes towards the ToolBank’s economic and community impact.
Figure 2: Respondent Agreement that the ToolBank Reduced Their CBOs Costs Related to Purchasing and Renting Tools and Equipment, Stratified by Respondent Years with the CBO
Figure 3: Respondent Agreement that the ToolBank Reduced Their CBOs Costs Related Storing Tools and Equipment, Stratified by Respondent Years with the CBO
Figure 4: Respondent Agreement that the ToolBank Reduced Their CBOs Costs Related to Staff Time to Complete Community Projects, Stratified by Respondent Years with the CBO
Figure 5: Respondent Agreement that the ToolBank Has Positively Impacted Their CBO, Stratified by Respondent Years with the CBO
Findings
The following plots analyze the general attitude questions from section two, stratified by the size of the organization, as determined by their publicly available gross receipts. These plots explore if there is a relationship between the size of the funding available to the CBO and the respondents’ attitudes towards the ToolBank’s economic and community impact.
confirm size classification standards| Table 2: Number and Percentage of CBOs by Size | ||
| Number Respondents | Percent of Total Respondents | |
|---|---|---|
| CBO Size | ||
| Less than 500k (group 1) | 29 | 64.4% |
| Between 500k and 1000k (group 2) | 3 | 6.7% |
| Greater than 1000k (group 3) | 13 | 28.9% |
| NA | 0 | 0% |
Figure 6: Respondent Agreement that the ToolBank Reduced Their CBO’s Purchasing and Renting Costs, Stratified by CBO Size
Figure 7: Respondent Agreement that the ToolBank Reduced Their CBOs Costs Related Storing Tools and Equipment, Stratified by, Stratified by CBO Size
Figure 8: Respondent Agreement that the ToolBank Reduced Their CBOs Costs Related to Staff Time to Complete Community Projects, Stratified by CBO Size
Figure 9: Respondent Agreement that the ToolBank Has Positively Impacted Their CBO, Stratified by CBO Size
Findings:
The following plots analyze the general attitude questions from section one, stratified by the minority status of the CBO, as determined by respondent self-report. For this survey, minority was defined as women, people of color, non-gender conforming individuals, LGBTQ+ individuals, and immigrants, and respondents were asked if they met one of more the following criteria: 1) the top executive position is held by a minority, 2) more than 50% of the board is made up of minorities, 3) more than 50% of program recipients are minorities, 4) none of the above. Respondents were able to select more than one of each criteria. The plots below explore if there is a relationship between the minority criteria of the CBO provided by the respondent and the respondents’ attitudes towards the ToolBank’s economic and community impact.
| Table 3: Number, percentages of respondants indicating minority leadership | ||
| # Yes (% Yes) | # No (% No) | |
|---|---|---|
| Minority Leadership | ||
| Our top executive position is held by a minority | 25 (56%) | 20 (44%) |
| More than 50% of our board is made up of minorities | 19 (42%) | 26 (58%) |
| More than 50% of program recipients are minorities | 26 (58%) | 19 (42%) |
| None of the above | 5 (11%) | 40 (89%) |
Figure 10: General Attitudes Toward ToolBank Impact Among Respondents Reporting a Top Executive with Minority Status
Figure 11: General Attitudes Toward ToolBank Impact Among Respondents Indicating More Than 50% of Program Recipients as Minorities
Figure 12: General Attitudes Toward ToolBank Impact Among Respondents Indicating More Than 50% of CBO Board Members are Minorities
Figure 13: General Attitudes Toward ToolBank Impact Among Respondents Indicating Their CBO Did Not Meet Any of the Minority Status Criteria Provided
Findings:
The following section analyses responses to the survey questions regarding the economic benefit of the ToolBank. For these questions, respondents were asked to provide their best estimates rounded to the nearest dollar. This section aimed to quantify the direct impact of the ToolBank on the member CBOs’ budgets and fundraising capabilities. This section asked respondents the following questions:
Note that the responses to all of the following questions in this section are highly skewed. As a result, we recommended reporting sum, medians, or quantiles rather than averages
Question: How much would you have spent purchasing or renting tools and equipment had the TB not existed?
Measure Value
1 Mean 5028.889
2 Median 2000.000
3 Mode 2000.000
4 sd 14108.953
5 1st quantile 500.000
6 3rd quantile 3500.000
7 Sum 226300.000
Question: How much would you have spent on storage of tools and equipment had the TB not existed ?
Measure Value
1 Mean 925.5556
2 Median 500.0000
3 Mode 0.0000
4 sd 1195.7606
5 1st quantile 0.0000
6 3rd quantile 1200.0000
7 Sum 41650.0000
Question: How much would you have spent on maintenance of tools and equipment had the TB not existed?
Measure Value
1 Mean 816.6667
2 Median 300.0000
3 Mode 500.0000
4 sd 2227.4466
5 1st quantile 80.0000
6 3rd quantile 500.0000
7 Sum 36750.0000
Question: Reflecting on your events in the past year: If the TB did not exist, how much funding would your organization allocate to buying, storing, tracking and maintaining your own inventory of tools and equipment?
Measure Value
1 Mean 2527.111
2 Median 1500.000
3 Mode 5000.000
4 sd 2532.100
5 1st quantile 800.000
6 3rd quantile 3000.000
7 Sum 113720.000
Question: number of total events hosted during last year
Measure Value
1 Mean 17.55556
2 Median 6.00000
3 Mode 3.00000
4 sd 25.65466
5 1st quantile 4.00000
6 3rd quantile 20.00000
7 Sum 790.00000
Question: If there were no TB, how many of your events in the past year would you not have been hosted for any reason?
Measure Value
1 Mean 6.222222
2 Median 2.000000
3 Mode 0.000000
4 sd 15.597041
5 1st quantile 1.000000
6 3rd quantile 5.000000
7 Sum 280.000000
Extra analysis: percent of event not host during last year
Measure Value
1 Mean 0.4057342
2 Median 0.3500000
3 Mode 0.0000000
Questions: If there were no TB, how many of your constituents, including volunteers, members, and event attendees, would have been negatively impacted in the past year?
Measure Value
1 Mean 1306.444
2 Median 150.000
3 Mode 100.000
4 sd 3077.895
5 1st quantile 75.000
6 3rd quantile 500.000
7 Sum 58790.000
| Impact on CBO if TB did not exists | |||||||
| Mean | 25th quantile | Median | Mode | 75th quantile | Standard deviation | Sum | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Money That Would Have Been Spent if TB Did Not Exist* | |||||||
| on Purchasing or renting tools and equipment | 5029 | 500 | 2000 | 2000 | 3500 | 14109 | 226300 |
| on storage of tools and equipment | 926 | 0 | 500 | 0 | 1200 | 1196 | 41650 |
| on maintenance of tools and equipment | 817 | 80 | 300 | 500 | 500 | 2227 | 36750 |
| on buying, storing, tracking and maintaining own tool+equiptment inventory | 2527 | 800 | 1500 | 5000 | 3000 | 2532 | 113720 |
| # Events/People Impacted If TB Did Not Exist | |||||||
| # events that would have been impossible in past year | 6 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 16 | 280 |
| % of CBO’s total events that would have been impossible in past year | 41 | 4 | 35 | 0 | 62 | 36 | 1826 |
| # constituents that would have been negatively impacted in the past year | 1306 | 75 | 150 | 100 | 500 | 3078 | 58790 |
| *in US dollars | |||||||
# A tibble: 1 × 1
`Average % of a CBO's events possible through TB in past year`
<dbl>
1 40.6
Findings:
The following section summarizes the community impact of the ToolBank, as reported by survey respondents. This section aims to quantify the indirect ways that the ToolBank may impact CBOs and the community by reducing barriers and costs related to accessing tools and equipment. This section analyzes responded from the following survey questions:
| Number and Percentage of Respondants Reporting Impacts of Funds Saved | ||
| # Respondents | % Respondents | |
|---|---|---|
| Accomplishments through money saved through TB | ||
| Hired more staff | 2 | 4.4% |
| Hosted additional projects/events | 27 | 60% |
| Other | 11 | 24.4% |
| Where funding would be cut if TB did not exist | ||
| Cut staff funding | 2 | 4.4% |
| Cut project funding | 26 | 57.8% |
| Other | 7 | 15.6% |
Findings:
The following section aims to quantify the impact that the ToolBank may have on CBOs’ ability to host specific events, including fundraising. This section analyses the following survey questions:
Example: “We raised $20,000 at our annual fundraiser and hosted 150 people.”
Question: do organizations with higher savings through toolbank report more of a positive impact?
Question: How do savings vary by different toolbank offerings?
Question: Which of the following types of events have TB tools and equipment helped your CBO complete?
choices frequency percentage
1 Quantity 25 0.556
2 Quality 35 0.778
3 Diversity 8 0.178
4 Consistency 30 0.667
5 other 2 0.044
choices frequency percentage
1 Fundraising 14 0.311
2 Service Projects 34 0.756
3 Educational Workshops 15 0.333
4 Community Building 38 0.844
5 other 6 0.133
Findings:
[1] 45
[1] 32.82222
[1] 30
[1] 28.83124
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0 10 30 50 100
Findings: